AndyH wrote:
Let's try again, Jim, nothing personal. Why should I listen to Ridley - what is it about him, his background, the information he imparts, or his published science that I should add to my knowledge base? I base my opinion on the facts, not the other way around. Since I've learned the hard way that bad information is worse than no information, I would like to know why you think Mr. Ridley's message is important.

The number of comments or 'thumbs up' on the YouTube queue tells me absolutely nothing about the validity of the information.

You still haven't answered the question I asked of you twice - why do YOU think this video is worth watching? If you cannot justify your choice of material, how can you sell it to others?

You're correct, it's not for me. I'm a retired military intelligence analyst and have seen first hand that contaminating a pool of facts with lies can get people killed.

Ridley is not a climate scientist, he's not a physicist, and he's got neither education nor experience in climate science. But that's not the worst of it - he's a conscious and intentional denier and liar with regards to climate - he, like "Lord" Moncton and others, are paid to give presentations that cloud or deny facts.

That makes him a bad source at best.

I strongly recommend that if you're truly interested in learning about climate science, that you consult with scientists that work in aspects of climate. I found some at my local university - and especially enjoyed having coffee with a pair of paleoclimatologists.

"You're correct, it's not for me. I'm a retired military intelligence analyst and have seen first hand that contaminating a pool of facts with lies can get people killed."

Was that during the Bush presidency? Now a full time scold! I hope your reply to this helps your post numbers. I have followed this issue for years, surrounded by relatives who sound just like you, with the latest "facts" fresh from propaganda websites like Skeptical Science. It's for the children, no wait, the grandchildren!

Since you have so much free time, with a full pension that your grandchildren will be paying for, spend a few minutes finding out how much fossil fuel went into the production of your Leaf.

jimbennett wrote:Was that during the Bush presidency? Now a full time scold! I hope your reply to this helps your post numbers. I have followed this issue for years, surrounded by relatives who sound just like you, with the latest "facts" fresh from propaganda websites like Skeptical Science. It's for the children, no wait, the grandchildren!

Since you have so much free time, with a full pension that your grandchildren will be paying for, spend a few minutes finding out how much fossil fuel went into the production of your Leaf.

Nice - you're a class act, Jim. I can assure you that I have paid more than you'll know for my paltry pension. And every time I get the pleasure of talking with someone such as yourself, I wonder again if it was worth it. Thanks for that.

For the record - before you take swings at anyone or anything, you might make sure you have your facts straight, and understand the differences between fact and assumption.

That's the problem with the garbage in this thread - folks don't know the difference between good and bad sources; fact and fiction; fact and propaganda; or even apparently how to know the difference. But that doesn't stop them from mouthing off anyway.

Do you have any idea that we have climate refugees in the United States today? We have dead families, building falling into the sea, and our tax money being used to rescue and relocate entire villages? Calling people or websites names - especially when they're working only in FACTS on the ground is not going to improve anyone's situation.

Anyone - ANYONE - that thinks skeptical science is a propaganda website, or that cannot understand the difference between 'political uncertainty' and 'scientific uncertainty' is simply outing themselves as yet another untrustworthy source of information. Please stop before you get someone else killed.

jimbennett wrote:
Since you have so much free time, with a full pension that your grandchildren will be paying for, spend a few minutes finding out how much fossil fuel went into the production of your Leaf.

Do you know how much fossil fuel went into the production of the Leaf? Would you share your estimate with us?
Could you also provide a source of that info?

If it is an unusually high amount, i.e. significantly more than needed for a comparable gasoline car, would you mind tell us why that is as well?

jimbennett wrote:Since you have so much free time, with a full pension that your grandchildren will be paying for, spend a few minutes finding out how much fossil fuel went into the production of your Leaf.

The California Air Resources Board had a study done on the life cycle CO2 emissions and found that the Leaf was somewhat better than the Prius, which was a lot better than regular ICE vehicle. If you use all renewable energy, it is probably considerably better. Also, as the grid gets cleaner, operating your Leaf produces fewer CO2 emissions if you don't use all renewable energy. Can't say that for a fossil fueled vehicle. Do a search of this site, it has been referenced before. I don't have a link off the top of my head.

jimbennett wrote:Since you have so much free time, with a full pension that your grandchildren will be paying for, spend a few minutes finding out how much fossil fuel went into the production of your Leaf.

The California Air Resources Board had a study done on the life cycle CO2 emissions and found that the Leaf was somewhat better than the Prius, which was a lot better than regular ICE vehicle. If you use all renewable energy, it is probably considerably better. Also, as the grid gets cleaner, operating your Leaf produces fewer CO2 emissions if you don't use all renewable energy. Can't say that for a fossil fueled vehicle. Do a search of this site, it has been referenced before. I don't have a link off the top of my head.

I really appreciate those who are charging with solar.

If I had the sunlight, I'd be doing the same, but for now the massive oak trees surrounding my place are doing their part in "eating up the CO2.")

Yes, I think Skeptical Science is a propaganda website, right up there with the Daily Kos--home to Michael Mann! Both are filled with the groupthink that AndyH is fond of and pushing on this forum--3900+ posts! Climate refugees? Really? How far do you have to drive to get to a climate that is 1 degree cooler, maybe 40 miles? The dust bowl in the 30's had climate refugees--what do your facts say the CO2 in the atmosphere was then? You are just getting desperate now.

In case it wasn't part of your knowledge base, cold kills more than heat.

jimbennett wrote:Yes, I think Skeptical Science is a propaganda website, right up there with the Daily Kos--home to Michael Mann! Both are filled with the groupthink that AndyH is fond of and pushing on this forum--3900+ posts! Climate refugees? Really? How far do you have to drive to get to a climate that is 1 degree cooler, maybe 40 miles? The dust bowl in the 30's had climate refugees--what do your facts say the CO2 in the atmosphere was then? You are just getting desperate now.

In case it wasn't part of your knowledge base, cold kills more than heat.

One degree? Maybe you ought to step away from the keyboard for a bit and meditate on the meaning of 'average'. While you're there, consider the definition of 'permafrost', then ask yourself how one degree could be melting something that used to be considered 'permanently frozen'. I'll give you a hint - it's much more than one degree warmer in the Arctic.